The highest authority in islam and even orientalist will tell you is, the quran and hadith, the latter the saying of the prophet, his commentary exceeds all. If a scholar contradicts either, his opinion is worth Zero on that aspect, regardless how great the scholar.

Yes but they haven't told us ,only you and you are contradicting your own scholars because it doesn't fit your mind set


fullywired

the main thing of this following koran and hadiths to the tee is it is written for arabic population, customs and conditions. but as islam is spread to other countries not primarily islamic, then it seems to be a big problem. how can something which is created to a specific region can support other regions. this is the reason for hardcore muslims living in non islamic countries are seen more as trouble as they are unable to integrate into their own countries culture. i have seen in my own homeland muslims who even refuse to learn local language and they want to stay isolated in their groups and then start saying things like govt is not taking care of them. they want special privelage, reservations because they want to live in arabia but are staying in nom arabic countries. my govt even pays for hajj. how ridiculous is that.

Muslims claim the Koran has never changed , but that isn't true. Just like the Bible it has been edited , rewritten ect..........

I want to know how Muslims deal with this ?


The Sana'a manuscripts—found in Yemen in 1972—represent the oldest extant version of the Quran, dated to the latter half of the 7th century. In it are textual variations from the standard Quran that is presently read throughout the world.
cont ...........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur%27an_in_t...ipt_in_Sana%27a



Researchers with a variety of academic and theological interests are proposing controversial theories about the Koran and Islamic history, and are striving to reinterpret Islam for the modern world. This is, as one scholar puts it, a "sensitive business"
by Toby Lester


IN 1972, during the restoration of the Great Mosque of Sana'a, in Yemen, laborers working in a loft between the structure's inner and outer roofs stumbled across a remarkable gravesite, although they did not realize it at the time. Their ignorance was excusable: mosques do not normally house graves, and this site contained no tombstones, no human remains, no funereal jewelry. It contained nothing more, in fact, than an unappealing mash of old parchment and paper documents -- damaged books and individual pages of Arabic text, fused together by centuries of rain and dampness, gnawed into over the years by rats and insects. Intent on completing the task at hand, the laborers gathered up the manuscripts, pressed them into some twenty potato sacks, and set them aside on the staircase of one of the mosque's minarets, where they were locked away -- and where they would probably have been forgotten once again, were it not for Qadhi Isma'il al-Akwa', then the president of the Yemeni Antiquities Authority, who realized the potential importance of the find. Al-Akwa' sought international assistance in examining and preserving the fragments, and in 1979 managed to interest a visiting German scholar, who in turn persuaded the German government to organize and fund a restoration project. Soon after the project began, it became clear that the hoard was a fabulous example of what is sometimes referred to as a "paper grave" -- in this case the resting place for, among other things, tens of thousands of fragments from close to a thousand different parchment codices of the Koran, the Muslim holy scripture. In some pious Muslim circles it is held that worn-out or damaged copies of the Koran must be removed from circulation; hence the idea of a grave, which both preserves the sanctity of the texts being laid to rest and ensures that only complete and unblemished editions of the scripture will be read.

Some of the parchment pages in the Yemeni hoard seemed to date back to the seventh and eighth centuries A.D., or Islam's first two centuries -- they were fragments, in other words, of perhaps the oldest Korans in existence. What's more, some of these fragments revealed small but intriguing aberrations from the standard Koranic text. Such aberrations, though not surprising to textual historians, are troublingly at odds with the orthodox Muslim belief that the Koran as it has reached us today is quite simply the perfect, timeless, and unchanging Word of God.

cont ...........

http://cremesti.com/amalid/Islam/Yemeni_An...ranic_Texts.htm

original article

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/199901/koran

Actually, LT Ripley, the Quran has never been modified from its original texts. The only possible difference that could be noticed between a version of the Quran and another is the way the words are pronounciated, which does not genuinely affect the interpretation of these words. Besides, as someone before me has already stated, Wikipedia is not a valid source, thus not all information available on it can be taken for granted.

Ok here is one example of how bias your sources are.............From fordham Edu link.

The Qu'ran: Surahs 1 and 47. For full text, see full texts page. See also Catholic Encyclopedia: Koran and Catholic Encyclopedia: Islam (Concept)

i wonder why they needed to consult the catholic encylopedia and not just go to the quran, the primary source.

I agree beautiful passage. however it still does not address, why works from islamic universities are not considered, why? the assumption they cannot talk against islam, rubbish. Its like saying, well until they write something against islam, we are not interested. Its absolute prejudice at an academic level.

Program in Islamic Studies, Yale University
http://www.yale.edu/religiousstudies/fields/islamic.html

Same here they not contesting the textual integrity... There is a failure to treat the Qur'an and sunnah as a whole. Muslims themselves make this mistake, and so cannot be too upset when those hostile to Islam do it too. So, for instance, people will take ayats from the Qur'an with no reference to other qualifying ideas in the Qur'an and with no reference to the historical situation at the time of the incident of revelation. (And I didn't even mention the centuries of commentary on the Qur'an and sunnah!) all disregarded by you, under the pretence its apologetic. YOU CLAIM TO BE FAIR.

i stopped going through each link, its time consuming, but my point is still, when it comes to textual integrity, you seem to think there is only one prevailant view, and that is the quran has changed, all the links i checked above dont agree, or at least give both views for to decide themselves.

And if you had read the full text page, you would have noticed the translation was by muslims Maulvi Sher Ali (which the Christian apologetic site Answering Islam tries to denounce) and edited by Malik Ghulam Farid..

Well, im glad you found the sources, at the time i did it. I was unable to find them. However, as for the sources, Sher Ali is one of many reliable sources. Which is fine.

Medieval Sourcebook: The Qu'ran - 1, 47

The Qur'an [or Koran], is a collection of the speeches made by Muhammad, remembered by his followers, and collected, written down and edited after his death. For Muslims Muhammad is in no way the author of the Qur'an, which is understood as the direct word of God given to Muhammad. Although scholars have some idea of the order of the speeches, the standard text is organized in a remarkable way. Divided into chapters, or surahs , after the first - short - surah, each surah is arranged according to length, the longest coming first. Muslims' early education often consists in learning large parts of the Qur'an and so this arrangement presents little difficulty. For new readers it can make the text somwhat confusing. The message of Muhammad, however, was not difficult to grasp - stark and absolute monotheism, the evil of sin, the revelation of God in the Qur'an and through Muhammad, and the creation of a new Muslim community. This message is repeated throughout the Qur'an. Given here, from the text translated by Maulvi Sher Ali, edited by Malik Ghulam Farid, and made available on the internet, are Surah 1, and Surah 47.

Hmmm i did read this, but what relevance does it have. Like I said numerous times, that when the textual integrity of the quran is questioned like you did in your first post, they tend to revert to bias sources and ignore the primary sources, and the centuries of commentaries done by muslims. All the prephirial stuff, is fine, historical and cultural etc.

FORDHAM UNIVERSITY
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/koran-sel.html

Both Maulvi Sher Ali and Malik Ghulam Farid translation of the Holy Qur' is much respected/used by the muslim community--particularly those who speak English and not Arabic. In fact, Quran Browser.org, et al provides for its readers an English translation of the Koran by Maulvi Sher Ali and Malik Ghulam Farid here:

Qur`an
http://www.quranbrowser.org/search.html

Actually among the muslim community, Pickthall and Yusuf Ali are seen as the best translations. However, my point still stands,when it comes to studying the qurans, integrity, its no longer questioned, and most orientalists base their work on translations.

Qur' an: PDF version
http://www.lifebuilders.to/QURAN.PDF

Catholic Encyclopedia ... Please note that it says SEE ALSO ... This means for a brief historical explanation--an overview--of Islam. Haven't you preached using both muslim and non-muslim sources, Ozi? It was you in Ask a Muslim post 256 et al who stated "At least, i have the decency and the honesty to read both sides and make a judgment based on that, unlike yourself, who leans towards one side." But when given, you fall back on bias, primary sources so forth and so on. There is no pleasing you.

Yeh see also, but most of the material comes from the Catholic encyclopedia. i said use both sources in reference to textual integrity, the other stuff is not questioned or disputed. i asssumed initially that all the links you provided were in order to show that they all dispute the textual integrity, which they dont. thats my mistake and i apologise for that. However, i still stand by my claim, that when it comes to textual integrity, which is a cornerstone of islamic belief, orientalist often refer to peers or works of collegues previous although in correct. In this instance they even ignore the arabic quran, centuries of islamic sources etc. Why?

For those wishing to read the rest of the bias, dishonest page/material from which Ozi is quoting ...

*Ibn Ishaq (d. c. 773 CE): Selections from the Life of Muhammad
*[Tierney 23] The Qu'ran: Surahs 1 and 47. For full text, see full texts page. See also Catholic Encyclopedia: Koran and Catholic Encyclopedia: *Islam (Concept) - See also Catholic, well where is the rest of the material from.
*The Qu'ran: Al-Fatiha (The Opening), text with RealAudio chanting. [At Islam.org]
*The entire Qu'ran is available in audio at this site.
*The Qur'an: The Women: From Surah's 2 and 4, [At Internet Archive, from CCNY] - this they could not find the source, the browsed the net for it.
*Muhammad: Last Sermon. Same as above
*The Sunnah, (traditions of the Prophet Muhammad), excerpts.
*Hadith Selections.
*Sahih Bukhari: Hadith. [At USC-MSA] - Fairly good source
*Hadith on fasting, collected by al-Bukhari (d. 870 CE)
*WEB Companions of The Prophet [At Witness Pioneer]
*A sort of Muslim hagiography. Unfortunately, with no sources cited. Says it all itself.

FORDHAM UNIVERSITY: Muhammad and Foundations - to 632 CE and Further Resources on Islamic History (bottom of page)
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/islam/islam...20to%20632%20CE



My head spineth! UMF members can visit this excellent site and decide for themselves if your statement is correct. You can also read Ozi's response to this site and make up your own minds.

About Oxford Islamic Studies Online
http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/Public/about.html

AND OZI'S RESPONSE
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...t&p=2212567



Really?! If you had only checked the link--which you obviously didn't--you would know Yale has a "... Near Eastern manuscripts collection at Yale’s Beinecke Library consists of well over 5,000 manuscripts, while works specific to the field of Arabic and Islamic Studies form the principle strength of the collection... In fact, here is their requirements for their Islamic Studies program--one taken by ALL MAJOR UNIVERSITIES GRADUATE PROGRAMS:

The Yale University Ph. D. Program in Islamic Studies is devoted to comprehensive research on the religion of Islam and to training superior students for academic careers in that field. Students accepted into the program are offered full scholarships along with a multi-year stipend. Islamic Studies is one of ten fields in the Department of Religious Studies, where students and professors researching different religious traditions interact. In addition to Prof. Gerhard Bowering and Assoc. Prof. Frank Griffel, students also have the benefit of professors in the Near Eastern Studies, History, and Political Science Departments.

Students in Islamic Studies are expected to develop both a comprehensive knowledge of Islamic intellectual history and religious thought, as well as mastery of a field of specialization and the requisite tools for critical scholarship on Islam. Students in Islamic Studies are expected to develop both a comprehensive knowledge of Islamic intellectual history and religious thought, as well as mastery of a field of specialization and the requisite tools for critical scholarship on Islam. They are expected to demonstrate competence in Islamic religious history (focusing on the development of Islamic civilization, law, society and institutions in the period from the origins of Islam to 1500 CE); Islamic religious thought (focusing on Islamic philosophy, theology, Sufism and Shi’ism); Islamic scripture and tradition (focusing on the composition, redaction and interpretation of Qur’an and Hadith); and modern and contemporary Islam (focusing on 16th to 21st century developments in the Arab Middle East, the Turco-Iranian world, South Asia, Southeast Asia, Africa and, most recently, Europe and America). Frank Griffel is responsible for modern and contemporary Islam, Gerhard Bowering for Islamic religious history; and thought as well as Qur’an and Hadith. Arabic language and literature, as well as Persian and Turkish, are taught in the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations. Modern Iranian history and Islamic political thought are taught respectively in the Department of History and Political Science.

Resources
Graduate students in the Program in Islamic Studies enjoy full access to the faculty of Yale University and the extensive resources of her library. Yale’s Near Eastern Collection boasts of over 150,000 volumes, with a particularly high quantity of early Arabic printed materials. Additionally, the Near Eastern manuscripts collection at Yale’s Beinecke Library consists of well over 5,000 manuscripts, while works specific to the field of Arabic and Islamic Studies form the principle strength of the collection. Yale’s Sterling Memorial Library also maintains an Arabic and Islamic Studies reading room that houses important reference works in the field.

The Arabic Philosophy Working Group: This working group sponsored by the Whitney Humanities Center promotes the study of Arabic philosophy at Yale. It addresses itself equally to philosophers, Arabists, and Islamicists as well as to scholars of Classics, and Medieval, Renaissance, and Judaic Studies. It meets at least monthly for the presentation of an invited paper, which center on Arabic philosophy but can include the discussion of relevant Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and Persian texts that predate or continue the Arabic philosophical tradition.

Language Requirements
Students majoring in Religious Studies who plan to do graduate work in the subject are strongly encouraged to study languages of which a reading knowledge will be needed for their graduate program... Students admitted to the Ph.D. program in Islamic Studies are expected to possess or quickly acquire a proficiency in two scholarly languages, normally German and French. Specific requirements for Islamic Studies are the following: No later than the end of the second year, each student must have passed an examination in advanced literary Arabic and must show the equivalent of two years of course work in Persian (Farsi). Under certain circumstances, a third Islamic language, such as Turkish or Urdu, may be extremely useful for research in the field as well.

Yale Graduate Program
http://www.yale.edu/religiousstudies/field....html#resources

Major universities offering Islamic Studies program take the same approach, OZI! Even students doing undergraduate work, seeking a major in IS must adhere to stringent requirements equivalent to that of Yale.

REQUIREMENTS OF THE MAJOR

Prerequisites: None

Number of courses: Program I—12 term courses (incl two-term senior essay); Program II—8 term courses in Rel St (incl two-term senior essay), and 4 nonintro courses in another subject linked with senior essay, chosen in consultation with DUS

Specific course required: Both programs—RLST 490a

Distribution of courses: Both programs—1 course in world religions; 3 courses in historical or textual study of a specific religion, as specified; 1 course in systematic thought, as specified; 1 sem other than junior sem, as specified

Substitution permitted: Program I—related courses in other depts, incl 2 courses in related ancient lang, with DUS permission; Both programs—Divinity School courses, with DUS permission; related courses for world religions req, with DUS permission

Senior requirement: Both programs—senior essay (RLST 491)

Yale: Religious Studies Program
http://www.yale.edu/yalecollege/publicatio.../religious.html

Of course ... you could care less. You are a student of nothing--particularly comparative religion. The above is concrete proof of the depth of study universities require ... one you are not even remotely familiar with! Why? You know only how to regurgitate intellectually dishonest tripe from one site--an apologetic site! Research is an anathema to you.

Yes i read all this, i agree with you that they on paper, they have a good method, but in practise is something different, when it comes to textual integrity. They have good sources, good material, but they dont dispute the textual integrity.

OOOOOOOOOOOOHHH WAIT A MINUTE HERE!!!!!!!!! You have claimed all along that all my sites are biased and DO NOT PROVIDE BOTH SIDES!!!!!!!! Now they do ... and one is allowed to decide for themselves!!!!!! What a HYPOCRITE!!!!!!!! And of course the sites I posted DON'T ALL AGREE with my views regarding texual integrity (and Islam as a whole)!!!!!!! THAT IS WHY I PROVIDED THEM--ALL SIDES OF THE ISSUE, OZI!!!

You are so far out in left field that it's frightening!!!!

I'll just stop here before I say something the MODS will reprimand me for.

Sean

Now listen mate, i accept, i maybe understood initially what you were trying to show or prove. I have seen above some academic organistation struggling to source primary sources and browse the net instead for any translations or interpretation. This initial argument was started by discussing the textual integrity, in reponse you posted, a list of academic organisations to prove they are not bias, I agree they are not when it comes to the prepherial in islam, but regarding textual integrity, they dont dispute it, or if they do show any dispute, they also provide the other side of the coin, which is good, but the other side is what you tend to ignore. As well as islamic universities and their efforts.

I accept the sites you provided dont all agree with you view, however, the point of debate was textual integrity, which i still stand by my claims, that, those who dispute, their sources, their papers, their conclusions are always questionable, especially if one cannot look at the otehr side of the coin objectively.

So i appologise for misunderstanding you to begin with, im not to proud not to accept my mistakes. However, sticking to the topic, the textual integrity of the quran is not questionable, the leading western and non western scholars, academic organisations etc dont dispute it. Any material i have seen that did dispute has been questionable on all fronts, besides puin original discovery, which since has been corrected and proven not to show any alteration in the quran.

I wonder if you ready to accept this view, or not! I dont dispute the material available to the academic organisations, I was always questioning their papers and research in to the textual integrity of the quran. Which is indisputable.

Ozi

Apology accepted, Ozi. And I'm ready to respect your opinion regarding TI. Obviously, I do not share this belief simply because the jury is still out on said issue. There is a long way to go ... and much work to be done. So, I hope that you can respect my view as well--even though you do not agree. And believe me, I have not the slightest problem in changing my mind--if the proof warrants it. And I say this from experience. I spent fifteen years as a Literalist Christian--three of those years in a very hellish deconversion. After shelving my faith, which, to say the least, was difficult, I began to examine the origins and evolution of my religion outside of the confines of apologetics. I changed my mind a million times it seems over these many years--and still do the more I study. Long story short ... I could no longer deny the overwhelming evidence that what I was believing in ... was not true. I left.

That said, I would hope that, instead of the differences in our beliefs, we can respectfully learn from one another. The last thing this world needs is any more division and hatred. We live in the 21st century and still we exchange bombs and bullets when difficult problems arise ... instead of a meaningful verbal discource, handshake and bow of respect. This has gone on for centuries, amongst all peoples, and it's time such barbarity ends. A utopian idea? Yes. Achievable? Absolutely!

I extend the olive branch. What say you?

Most kindly,

Sean "A really super guy" Holderread

Modern Muslims assert that the current Koran is identical to that recited by Muhammad. But earlier Muslims were more flexible. 'Uthman, A'isha, and Ibn Ka'b (among others) all insisted that much of the Koran had been lost.

Codices were made by different scholars (e.g. Ibn Mas'ud, Ubai ibn Ka'b, 'Ali, Abu Bakr, al-Aswad). 'Uthman's codex supposedly standardised the consonantal text, yet consonantal variations persisted into the 4th century AH. An unpointed and unvowelled script contributed to the problem. Also, although 'Uthman tried to destroy rival codices variant readings survived. Standardisation was not actually achieved until the 10th century under the influence of Ibn Mujahid. Even he admitted 14 versions of the Koran. These are not merely differences in recitation; they are actual written variations.

Also, if some verses were omitted, why couldn't some have been added? For example, the Kharajites considered the Joseph story to be an interpolation, and most scholars suggest the addition of scribal glosses designed to explain the text or smooth out rhyme.

Scepticism of the Sources (pp. 18-34)

Muhammad died in 632. The earliest written material of his life is the sira of Ibn Ishaq (750), but Ibn Ishaq's work was lost. We only have parts of it available in quotation by Ibn Hisham (834). The hadith are even later. There are six authoritative collections of hadith: Bukhari, Muslim, Ibn Maja, Abu Dawud, al-Tirmidhi, and al-Nisai. All are dated between 200 and 300 years after Muhammad.

Scholars have attempted to distinguish which hadith contain real information from those containing legendary, theological or political embellishment. Wellhausen insists that the 8th century version (i.e. Ibn Ishaq) was accurate, and later versions were deliberate fictions designed to alter the 8th century story. Caetani and Cammens suggest that most sira were invented to construct an 'ideal' past and a justification for contemporary exaggerated exegesis of the Koran. Most scholars conclude that the stories about Muhammad prior to becoming a prophet are fictitious. In his important critique of the hadith Goldhizer argues that many hadith accepted even by the most rigorous collectors were 8th and 9th century forgeries with fictitious isnads. These hadith arose out of quarrels between the 'Umayyads and their opponents – both sides freely inventing hadith to support their respective positions. The manufacture of hadith speeded up under the 'Abbasids who were vying with the 'Alids for primacy. Even Muslims acknowledged a vast number of forgeries [~90% of hadith were discarded], but even so the collectors were not as rigorous as could be hoped. Even in the 10th century over 200 forgeries were identified in Bukhari. At one point 12 different versions of his work existed.

In his study of the hadith Schacht concludes:

1. Isnads only began to be widely used after the 'Abbasid revolution, and then they were formulated carelessly.
2. The better an isnad looks the more likely it was to be spurious
3. No existing hadith can reliably be ascribed to Muhammad
4. Most of the classical corpus was widely disseminated after Shafi'i (820) and most of he legal tradition was formulated in the 9th century.

http://debate.org.uk/topics/books/origins-koran.html


This is just an extract from a longer article


fullywired

Like you questioned the textual integrity, which today is undisputed by credible western scholars and non western western scholars.

Obviously I have to respond politely. As I have mentioned prior, TI is starting to be questioned and the Criticisms (not a negative term) applied just as been done with the Bible. What I find intriguing about the following article from Lebanonwire/Daily Star, is that such discussions are now being undertaken by muslim scholars from numerous ME countries. It's nice, and hopeful, to see such a thing occurring. I applaud them for looking seriously at the Koran by scholars of all ilk--western, non-western and everything inbetween. And I'm glad they are not being thrown out windows! Just kidding ... just kidding! I think we both could cool down and have a chuckle.

Lebanonwire, July 12, 2003

The Daily Star

Giving the Koran a history: Holy Book under scrutiny
Critical readings of the Muslim scripture offer alternative interpretations of well-known passages

Scholars draw techniques of textual criticism from those used to analyze Bible

LEBANON WIRE: DAILY STAR
http://www.lebanonwire.com/0307/03071213DS.asp

Most respectfully,

Sean

Amen ...! But we will have to agree to disagree here. What a shock, eh?! Qur'anic Textual Criticism has just begun. It is in its infancy--equivalent to where Biblical Criticism was in the 1800's.

Kindly,

Sean

Amen ...! But we will have to agree to disagree here. What a shock, eh?! Qur'anic Textual Criticism has just begun. It is in its infancy--equivalent to where Biblical Criticism was in the 1800's.

Kindly,

Sean

Anyway, i am 100% sure, time will prove what i said all the time, the TI is no longer disputed.

Morning Ozi.



I said the exact same thing regarding the Bible at one time. And as you say, time will tell.

Most kindly,

Sean

Fair enough ... fair enough ...

Scholars need to apply the same critical methods to the Qur'an as they did the Bible--the Criticisms (not a negative term). Thankfully they are starting to do that now. And Historical Method (Criticisms) takes in the whole history of Islam/Qur'an--its origins and evolution so forth and so on. This is what is done with all ancient texts; the Qur'an should be no different.

There is no harm in critically analyzing ancient documents i agree with you. In fact this helps to answer questions.

However i some disagreement regarding another thing you have mentioned.

The Quran has been scrutinized studied critically evaluated for centuries now!!!

But

Only recently western scholars have started evaluating it from a neutral and critical perspective

When the west broke from the churches grip and lead a path of rapid scientific advancement

It has taken sometime for west to overcome earlier stereotypes and literature which is plagued with bias

Its good west has started looking at it critically and through a neural perspective

There is no harm in critically analyzing ancient documents i agree with you. In fact this helps to answer questions.

However i some disagreement regarding another thing you have mentioned.

The Quran has been scrutinized studied critically evaluated for centuries now!!!

But

Only recently western scholars have started evaluating it from a neutral and critical perspective

When the west broke from the churches grip and lead a path of rapid scientific advancement

It has taken sometime for west to overcome earlier stereotypes and literature which is plagued with bias

Its good west has started looking at it critically and through a neural perspective